[Total: 0    Average: 0/5]
The MTM and other prédétermimation tools are very powerful tools but require a great deal of knowledge and rigour in its application. Below we propose a comparison between different of these methods.

Introduction

The MTM and other prédétermimation tools are very powerful tools but require a great deal of knowledge and rigour in its application. Below we propose a comparison between the MTM-1, MTM-2, MTM-UAS and the Basic-most for a change of a fuse from an electrical outlet.

Subject of the study

The video below details this operation that lasts just over 20 seconds. You will see the person who will unscrew the plug, remove the fuse, put the new one and then screw the plug. We will apply the 3 methods and compare the times obtained.

1-Observation

As a first step, we will perform an observation of the movements, detailing what the left hand does independently of the right hand. One will then, for each of the methods cut out the different operations and identify the exact movement according to the tables available.

2-Creation of the observation table

We will list in order each of the operations on a two-column table, one for the left hand and one for the right hand. We will list them in chronological order by putting the simultaneous operations face to face.

3-Quotation

For each of the movements, we quottons the operations according to the data of the tables. We’ll pay attention to the simultaneous operations. Indeed, we will take for the final quotation the operation being the longest.

4-Preliminary result

At the end of the quotation, we add up all the times to get the total time of the operation.

MTM-1

MTM-2

MTM-UAS

Basic-Most

Time obtained in seconds

20,24

17,35

28,26

23,4

5-Adjustment

To the different results obtained, we apply Increases, called DPMA coefficient for dynamometric, posture, monotony and ambience.

In our case, we will apply the following markup:

  • Personal constant and normal fatigue: 9%
  • Seated Posture: 0%
  • Level of concentration due to complex process requiring attention: 4%
  • Low monotony: 0%
  • Normal fatigue level: 0%
  • Precise level of work precision: 2%
  • The rest is at 0%

A total increase of 15%.

So we get the following final results.

MTM-1

MTM-2

MTM-UAS

Basic-Most

Time obtained in seconds

30,35

26,03

42,4

35,1

6-Conclusion

The first observation is that it is not necessary to perform a timed analysis at this level of accuracy via a film. Indeed, there may be microcuts that can disturb the results.

Then, in this film, the person performs only one production cycle. The aspect fatigue, weariness does not intervene therefore.

For the results, these range from 26.03 to 42.4 seconds, almost from single to double. This is due to the fact that the MTM-UAS or the Basic-MOST Does not apply on such short processes. For the observed cycle. The MTM-2 has a margin of error of about 10% on processes of less than 30 secs.

In the end, it will be noted that the most appropriate method for the observed cycle is the MTM-1 and set 30.35 seconds as the predetermined standard time. This time taking into account the different effects of time (weariness…).

Share This